GR 211917; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211917 , February 27, 2017
NORMA C. GAMARO and JOSEPHINE G. UMALI, Petitioners vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioners Norma C. Gamaro and Josephine G. Umali, mother and daughter, were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Private complainant Joan Fineza entered a jewelry business venture with Norma and her daughters, wherein Fineza would purchase foreclosed jewelry from M. Lhuillier Pawnshop, where Umali was manager. Norma would sell the pieces, and proceeds were to be shared, with Fineza receiving 50%. As security, Norma and her other daughter Rowena issued checks reflecting the jewelry’s value. The venture soured when Fineza discovered the Gamaros had other suppliers. Upon termination, the checks issued were dishonored due to a closed account, and Fineza learned the jewelry had been pawned elsewhere, compelling her to redeem them. A demand for over ₱2.2 million went unanswered.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which: (1) convicted Norma Gamaro of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b); and (2) held both petitioners jointly and severally liable for monetary awards despite Umali’s exoneration from criminal liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On criminal liability, the Court sustained Norma’s conviction for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), not paragraph 2(a) as charged. The elements of estafa through misappropriation under paragraph 1(b) were present: Fineza delivered jewelry to Norma under an obligation to sell and remit proceeds; Norma misappropriated the items by pawning them to third parties; this caused damage to Fineza; and there was demand. The variance between the paragraph charged and that proved is not fatal if the accused is duly informed of the nature of the accusation and the established facts constitute an offense under the statute.
On civil liability, the Court upheld the joint and several obligation imposed on both petitioners. Josephine Umali’s exoneration from criminal liability does not extinguish her civil liability arising from her acts. The RTC and CA found her participation in the business scheme integral, as she facilitated the purchase of jewelry from her pawnshop and had knowledge of the transactions. Civil liability, which is the obligation to repair the damage caused, persists independently based on preponderance of evidence. The lower courts uniformly found sufficient factual basis for her shared obligation to indemnify Fineza for the losses incurred from the misappropriated jewelry and dishonored checks.